White v. Fish — fee award vacated for lack of supporting findings

Case
Diana T. White v. Lynn A. Fish, in her capacity as Executrix of the Estate of Joanna I. Tabit
Court
Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Judge
Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear; Judge Charles O. Lorensen; Judge S. Ryan White
Date Decided
August 27, 2026
Docket No.
25-ICA-431
Topics
Attorney’s fees; Probate; Bad faith; Appellate review
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

After Joanna I. Tabit died, Lynn A. Fish was appointed executrix of her estate. Diana T. White made several unsuccessful efforts in different forums to remove Fish as executrix, alleging misconduct that the opinion says was unsubstantiated.

White then sought to enjoin Fish from serving as executrix because Fish would not bring a wrongful-death action for the estate. At an October 2025 hearing, White withdrew her complaint and injunction motion after her counsel acknowledged that the relevant limitations period had expired. Fish sought Rule 11 sanctions and attorney’s fees and costs. The circuit court denied sanctions because White withdrew the case, but awarded Fish fees and costs associated with the hearing and dismissed the case with prejudice.

The Court’s Holding

The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the fee-and-cost award and remanded. Although a court in equity may award fees to a prevailing litigant where the losing party acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons, the circuit court did not expressly find that White engaged in any such conduct.

The circuit court’s reference to White’s prior litigation efforts and its citation to the governing standard did not supply the required factual findings or analysis. Without findings identifying both the qualifying conduct and the facts supporting that determination, the appellate court could not meaningfully review the discretionary award.

Key Takeaways

  • An equitable fee award under Sally-Mike requires an express determination of bad-faith, vexatious, wanton, or oppressive conduct.
  • A court must identify the facts supporting that determination; merely citing the standard is insufficient.
  • The appellate court vacated and remanded for a new order with detailed findings, not for an automatic denial of fees.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces that fee shifting outside a statute or contract is an exceptional remedy requiring a reviewable factual basis. Trial courts must explain why litigation conduct meets the Sally-Mike standard before charging one party with the other side’s attorney’s fees and costs.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top